Monday, September 20, 2010

In Reply

When I wrote about socialism, communism and anarchism, I was not saying capitalism is the perfect system to bring peace and prosperity. It is good if it can but without capitalism more than 400 million people across Asia would not have been lifted out from poverty.

I just wanted to show the hypocrisy of socialist, communist and anarchist. I do not go around preaching socialism etc etc, so if I were not "a servant in hot soup kitchen for the poor in winter" as alleged, I am not being hypocritical.

I had often enough said democracy and socialism cannot be run together. Unless you apply capitalism element in that blend. This is exactly what Scandinavians countries are doing. If Nokia, Ikea, Volvo and Ericsson are not capitalist, then what is capitalist? Without these greed-driven-profit-oriented companies, the state cannot "collectively collect tax for its own people".

And please enlighten me, are these Scandinavian countries anarchy?

To those anarchist who happen to be truly democratic fighters, what is the point to choose one own's government when you don't subscribe to the idea of state?

Incidentally, they talk much about socialism i.e. robbing the rich to feed the poor. This concept is noble. So noble until it was named affirmative action. But few people realize only a strong intervention by the state can guarantee its implementation. But is it pure democracy?

Is there democracy in the country where the state can intervene in wealth distribution? How about the will of its own people who are happen to be rich and wanted to use their wealth traveling to Soweto, South Africa? Can the government negate their will? Can the government democratically squeezing their wealth? And do remember, are they really nice to vote for government who will squeeze their wealth? Clearly one must become undemocratic to implement affirmative action as advocate by socialism. Just look at Cuba, China and yes, Malaysia for example.

Considering this, would you still believe democracy, anarchy, communism and socialism can be blend together without capitalism? By using Scandinavian countries as reference, you are already know the answer. The truly hypocrisy prevails.

This same people talk, preach and fiercely demand the stateless world where no government, no affirmative action, and no capitalism exists. Basically their dream is self-serving. What they want is not peace and prosperity. Afraid of competition and losing the ship, they just want to live happily ever after in the small island.


awien said...

kalau dah pening2 lalat dok pk hal kata try order coklat sye yang colorful ni.Sure tak pening dah. (Tetiba je kan)...Just to promote.. =D

Ez Puella Sapiens said...

I guess you never read Marx carefully.

I guess we believe capitalism is a transition,not a forever-and-ever system.We got to move on.

Before capitalism,it was feudalism and slave system.You need to understand this system,unless it's your intention to spin around public's opinion about socialism and anarchism.

Peace and prosperity?Perhaps you should watch V for Vendetta,to get peace and prosperity,all you have to do is silent obedient consent.

People who never speaks and obeys,are people who seek for peace?

Hey,wake up!There's no such thing as peace and prosperity!There's war and greed everywhere.

And people who seek peace need a sanctuary,people like me who realizes that we need a shelter from this utterly disorder,by seeking our own "island".

So far,we're working well.And it's better than losing a ship,but still looking for champagne and caviar,as the story told.

Holden Caulfield said...

Ez bercakap pasal religion kat Scandinavia,bang.Bukan sistem ekonomi.Jangan nak buat spin lagi.Orang tulis pasal benda lain - dia cakap lain.

They will be better if they change their economy system.Period.

Basuh Baju said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HEROICzero said...

Kalau detest sgy dgn capitalism, pergi
Bukak syarikat yg tak buat untung.

Pergi tulis buku atau novel dn bg

Tak perlu caj rm20. Kata utk kebaikan

Kan? See, siapa yg hipokrit?"

Nice, Basuh Baju.. =)

Basuh Baju said...

Ez: u cuba counter my previous posting by saying its not a myth.

U were saying Scandinavian countries adlh cth bgmana sosialism n demokrasi blh bergerak
sama2 without capitalism.

But I dont agrre.

sbb aku tnya kau blk syarikat
besar di negara tu bkn kapitalis ke?

N even are these countries anarchy?

U yg bg argument but then u yg x defend. yet u said aku cuba spin.

Siapa yg spin?

Nami: baca btl2 apa yg ex lu tulis.

Mmgla kapitalisme tak akan kekal. even I admit kapitalisme akan deviate dr idea asal yg ditulis Adam Smith.

And we've seen this kat mas sendiri.

We've affirmative action which in line with socialism.

But then we're capitalist.

So apa mknanya?

Kapitalisme pn blh amek mana prinsip yg bgs dlm Sosialisme.

Mslh dgn kau yg taksub dgn bakunin,
Marx smpai anggap kata2 dia sbg syahadah, kau xreti nak compromise dan praagmatik.

Kau nak 100% sosialisme dn 100%
Demokrasi smpai jd anarki. Kau tolak 100% kapitalisme wlpn ada certain element dlmnya yg bagus.

selalunya those yg susah nak jd pragmatik ni adlh those yg dh terikat dgn idea buku teks.

Kalau tak, dia blh je make slightly change to that idea.

aku tnya kau la senang- kenapa tulis novel pengejar bintang kau caj rm20? kenapa tak bg free utk kebaikan bersama?

nahmy said...

interesting article. its all about the 'social gap'...doesn't matter what the system is

Anonymous said...


sesekali mendapat gak ko!

nice article basuh baju...,
let the island with all the rats. kahkahakahah.

"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie."


"The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".(wiki)

- hypocrisy is socialist, communist and anarchist. cukup.stop.khalas!(umero uno)


reverie said...

This talk is never ending. Apa-apa pun aku percaya kondisi malaysia sekarang ni masih lebih baik dari rata-rata negara miskin dan rata-rata negara maju. Malaysia is a truly blessed country with it current gov and system if we take a proper look ontt and into it. Cuma we can't please everyone cause everyone have different needs and wants.

anyway, truly nice shot with this article. ;)

A.b said...

kalau begitu, jangan salahkan proletariats sekiranya mereka menyamun, merompak si bourgeoisies..

the equality of distribution of wealth is never there. if u r within the bourgeoisies, then it is understood. but if u'r not, u should really b a servant in hot soup kitchen for the poor in winter.

mmg la..semua nk untung, siapa nk rugi. tapi kalau u da berjuta2 untung, n at the same time berjuta2 living in poverty, u nak ckp ape? nasib diorg lah? i bet if u r the govt, people would really love to topple u down..

nevertheless, socialism cannot b exercised nowadays. siapa nk trade dgn Cuba yg kene sanction? semua nak trade dgn negara yg menyebabkan ekonomi dunia hampir musnah i.e the United State of America (read it proudly, man). Capitalism is soaring high above. everybody's getting greedy. n nobody is willing enough to share. n people like u are liking that hideous fact of life!

man,You should really watch 'Capitalism; A Love Story'..

"This is capitalism. A system of taking and giving... mostly taking."

Anonymous said...

banyak grammatical errors.tak faham lah,encik

tak payah berlagak nak 'skipping London'.tulis je dlm BM

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous,

kalau bodoh, jangan beritahu orang.. simpan2 sudah..

keep it up bb!

mat london

Anonymous said...

Xyah layan la si Nami tu...buang masa jek.

Dia tu ada insecurity problem...dia cuma thrive pada benda/topik yang org krg tahu supaya boleh up diri dia.

Kalau topik tu org mula baca lebih sikit dan cabar dia, he'll be exposed...dan dia mula keluar ayat mcm ni :

1) Jgn ckp benda yang kau tak tahu.

2) Faham dulu benda tu, baru cakap.

Padahal dia pon faham sedang2 jek. Mcm la dia sorang baca Das Kapital. Org lain ni suma buta huruf kot tak reti nak baca buku tu.

I'm with U on this matter.


zedmagel said...

Salam Bro,

Satu pandangan yang bernas.

Manech said...

The thing is, you use big words loosely, sometimes interchangeably, and often, erroneously. Read more please.

"Considering this, would you still believe democracy, anarchy, communism and socialism can be blend together without capitalism?"

This is not even, in whatever shape or form, a valid question. And by valid, I mean something sensible and necessary (to be asked).

These sociopolitical conditions are not like lego blocks, or ingredients in a soup. What's your point in wanting to blend them together?

If you want to prove a point, especially if that involves name-dropping a scholar who's been the basis of certain socioeconomic and political revolutions, and using concepts that have long been (and are still being) discussed and debated on, make sure you know, at the very least, the basics of what you are talking about.

Otherwise, it's just irresponsible, childish jabber.